For more information on UNDOCUMENTED LOANS please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

================================

Competing Transactions:

The One Banks Use Which never Existed

vs

The Real Loan that was Undocumented

You may have noted that in response to my articles and briefs, banks don’t argue with the premise that they have no original money transaction; instead they argue that there doesn’t need to be one. I disagree. For those of you who have been reading my articles over the last week, you will see some familiar comments and facts in this New York Times article. The deeper questions have yet to be asked in mainstream media — why was it necessary for the banks to fabricate documentation — that is, if the transactions they are claiming to enforce were real? My only answer is that the transaction they are claiming to document never existed.

If the transactions represented by banks actually existed, they would never have needed to fabricate documents with forged, robosigned signatures. The fabricated, back-dated, forged, robosigned documents and now robo witnesses are corroboration for the irrefutable conclusion that there is no underlying transaction with the banks. This entire fiasco is simply based upon greed and opportunity.

The banks saw an opportunity to use other people’s money for their own benefit and to the detriment of everyone else involved. They converted themselves from intermediaries, which is their primary role for which they are licensed, to the principal. It is as simple as this: imagine your bank claiming to won your TV set because you signed a check payable to the store that sold it to you. The bank claims they were the real party in interest and they can enforce the warranty on the TV against the manufacturer and even take your TV away from you because “they own it.” What Judges are missing is that banks are intermediaries. They are a middleman not the actual player; but Banks have convinced the court that they are the principal player and that even if they are not the principal real party in interest, it is irrelevant. If we were to keep moving down this path, the entire fabric of our laws concerning contract and negotiable paper will be destroyed.

And the fact that their puppets happen to be named at the closing of the loan does not mean those puppets did anything except look cute. If the money came from someone else, then the paperwork should have disclosed that and more importantly the note and mortgage should have been made out in favor of the source of funds.

The assumption that it is none of anyone’s business how the banks securitized mortgage loans is just plain wrong, and just plain dangerous. It opens the door to far more trips into the moral hazard zone. Judges have been assuming that the note and mortgage were made out in favor of a properly constituted representative of the party who was the source of funds or they are assuming that the numerous parties involved in the loan closing were somehow in privity with the sources of funds. This is not true and obviously not based upon any evidence presented anywhere; but as Judges loosen the ropes that bind us and allow inquiry into the money trail, they will discover, to their horror, that the originating transaction was actually undocumented and the one described by the banks never existed.

The problem the Judges are having is an old one now — well if the party named on the note and mortgage didn’t loan money to the borrower, then who did loan money to the borrower? And the answer has been “I don’t know, but they are out there.” That has been an unsatisfactory answer caused by the failure of the same courts to enforce reasonable discovery requests seeking exactly that information. Hence the frustration of foreclosure defense work for lawyers.

When it comes to writing about Wall Street corruption, Gretchen Morgenson gets very little support from her Employer, the New York Times. If you want to give her more leverage to write more of these articles then start writing letters to the editor and comment on her articles when it deals with Wall Street corruption.

12 Responses

you stated this. my mortgage and note is payable to gmac mortgage corporation. in 2005. but money came from deuscher bank trust, because i have the the INCOMING WIRE-ADVICE OF CREDIT STATEMENT FROM THE LOCAL BANK FOR ATTORNEY THAT DID CLOSING AS IT WENT INTO HIS ACCOUNT. THEN HE MADE CHECKS FROM HIS ACCOUNT FOR ALL TRANSACTIONS.

THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS THIS…GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION COULDNT LEND MONEY TO START WITH, AND DIDNT HAVE THE MONEY WHEN THEY SAY THEY DID. REASON.

IS THAT THEY USED MY MORTGAGE NOTE TO SECURE THE FUNDS, WITHOUT MY MORTGAGE NOTE. THEY DIDNT HAVE MONEY..GET IT. SO ALL ALONG BEFORE THE CLOSING THEY SHOP FOR BEST RATES FOR THEM TO GET MONEY USEING YOUR CREDIT. NOT THERES.

IF YOU LOOK AT ANY MORTGAGE / AND NOTE ITS STATE’S THE FOLLOWING ON THE DAY OF YOUR CLOSING..

1/ In return for loan that i HAVE received, i promise to pay u.s. $ 350,000 to the order of lender. lender is GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION.

NOW THERE WAS NO MONEY THAT WAS GIVEN THAT DAY..NO MONEY CHANGE HANDS..PUT THE NOTE SAY’S DIFFERENT.

IT SAY ( HAVE RECEIVED )

SO THIS CORPORATION HAD NO MONEY, IT USED OUR CREDIT AND SIGN MORTGAGE NOTE TO GET A LINE OF CREDIT FROM ANOTHER BANK….GET IT. USING THE BORROWER CREDIT AND SIGN MORTGAGE AND NOTE TO FUND OUR OWN MORTGAGE AND NOTE. REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SO THEY TAKE A SIGN MORTGAGE AND NOTE REALLY JUST THE NOTE. TAKE IT TO FEDERAL RESERVE OR TO THE TREASURY, AND GET UP TO 30 TIMES THAT AMOUNT IN CREDIT FOR THEM TO USE FOR ANY PURPOSE. SO ON A 350,000 DOLLAR NOTE. GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION RECEIVED A AVAILABLE CREDIT LINE OF 10,500,000.00 DOLLARS. NOT BAD HA.

THEN SOLD IT MANY TIMES AFTER THAT, FOR THE FRAUDLENT APPRAISELS THEY DID AS IN MIND IT WAS 500,000 DOLLARS, I HAVE DOCS SHOWING THIS BEING DONE IN THE SEC DOCS SHOWING THEM SELLING 1027 MORTGAGES IN A SECURITED MORTGAGE TRUST . SELLING THEM ALL AT THE FRAUDLENT APPRAISEL PRICES. WHAT A SCAM.

johngault, on February 4, 2015 at 1:31 pm said:
NG: “If the money came from someone else, then the paperwork should have disclosed that and more importantly the note and mortgage should have been made out in favor of the source of funds. ”
I’d like to see you support that because I don’t believe what I think you intend by that statement. I’ve cautioned 10 times about contracts between the named payee and the source of funds for those funds. Generally it’s a line of credit for which the loans become security until transferred and delivered. Actually, because of those contracts, the money DIDN’T come from someone else. A lender is free to make loans
with funds it has itself borrowed. The payee pays interest on those funds mol by way of the price differential. But, I do believe a contract must exist to evidence the payee’s loan or as you say, it could be deemed someone’s else’s money but even then, I wouldn’t go so far as to say the loan is invalid. This isn’t to say fwiw that I don’t see the
“impropriety” of investor funds trickling down to the closing table and all the ensuing ramifications, whatever they may be.

NG: “If the money came from someone else, then the paperwork should have disclosed that and more importantly the note and mortgage should have been made out in favor of the source of funds. ”

I’d like to see you support that because I don’t believe what I think you intend by that statement. I’ve cautioned 10 times about contracts between the named payee and the source of funds for those funds. Generally it’s a line of credit for which the loans become security until transferred and delivered. Actually, because of those contracts, the money DIDN’T come from someone else. A lender is free to make loans
with funds it has itself borrowed. The payee pays interest on those funds mol by way of the price differential. But, I do believe a contract must exist to evidence the payee’s loan or as you say, it could be deemed someone’s else’s money but even then, I wouldn’t go so far as to say the loan is invalid. This isn’t to say fwiw that I don’t see the
“impropriety” of investor funds trickling down to the closing table and all the ensuing ramifications, whatever they may be.

Here is were we got Wells Fargo because they are so arrogant that within a couple of weeks you got the State of Massachusetts, Holm v. Wells, Freddie Mac and re:Franklin all come down, plus they got this law firm in Kozeny & McCubbin who is this foreclosure mill that I got forgeries form, as it all come together just how bold they are.

However one can only hope that the Justice Dept stop it negotiations with the bank because of what was coming down the pipe. I don’t see how the Justice Dept or even Wells Fargo does not see how with the internet to connect everyone that they are not caught and would want to at least work something out as it look like they did in Massachusetts were they taken it out of the State charging them with the $2.7 million and agreed to fix the fraudulent foreclosures and titles.

I think we all know that they will appeal the Holm decision for $2.95 million, but as the NYTimes reported and there was discovery it had the potential claims like this on a $140,000 mortgage loan? With treble damage it would have only been $420,000!

Im not sure how things look in other states but in California they have[Big Banks]taken care of that is by owning the courts when it comes to these type cases.Look at the pension fund holdings of the judges starting 2007-2014,all of my answers are there.Why did my lawyer who Ive paid to date 30k move my case from one court to Santa Monica where he says he has a good relationship with many of the judges,I would hate to see what happens when hes not liked.Phony,fraudulent,fabricated documents by the attorneys for Wells Fargo,and the Escrow co,and I have piles of hard factual proof but she dismisses at the pleading stage.So now what?So there are several corporations[Time warner being one,AT&T,All big Banks]just to name a few that carry on as though they are above the law,you just get the vibe that it doesnt matter what you say,well the amount of their stock in the pension funds of the judges is crazy,also the pages and pages of fannie and freddie that they hold yet not given to these pensions until 2012-2014.also all the Big Banks and many where history when they got these stocks or bonds,Countrywide,Wells,B of A ,corporate and MBS blows my mind.I will bet my life that these securities were gifts to these lovely criminals in black gowns and and for the people me,you the courts are the last stop before hell,meant to be a place of honesty,ethics and fairness.

elexquisitor I too emailed Gretchen on the connect of Wells Fargo and Kozeny & McCubbin in my case and the cases of all the 1.3 million WaMu loan they were servicing since the Jul 31, 2006 servicing agreement, but it pretty funny that she hardly ever opens her columns, as I believe her to be hand tied by the paper and plus she was wrong on many point at the beginning of this.

Does not look good to be one of the foremost financial reporter in the country and writing a book on the financial crisis and the larges cause of foreclosures coming from Fannie, Freddie & Ginnie, go completely ignored by all the media. Wells Fargo was getting hardly and bad press but they are the larges offender of these fraudulent foreclosures!

Her paper in one day could change the entire course of this crap tomorrow, but they taken the stance to report are the fact instead of ahead of the pack!

I sent email to Gretchen referencing Kalicki v JP Morgan appellate case that the CA suckpreme court refused to publish because it is prima facia evidence that JPM forged a document, recorded it, then presented it as a fraud upon the court, and the trial judge and appellate judge both ruled against JPM.

Since then Kamala Harris was handily re-elected, and still fails to prosecute the prima facia evidence of 3 felonies by JPM.

The documents cant be relied upon – i have shown this by evidencing the fact, only the accounting can be relied upon and so far ive shown that to be unreliable thus far, discovery is required for justice to be served and the court should rule on the EVIDENCE in front of them.
God knows this is the cross we bear, waiting, being messed about, delay no end, this is what the pro se litigant is put through, anyone out there who can relate – do not give up, take it to the end of the earth so you can have the peace knowing you did everything you could to get your piece of justice.

Morgenson is just now coming around as she at first allowed her prejudices to get in the way of realizing that the banks were actual capable of crimes against homeowners.

Having dealt with the law firm Kozeny & McCubbin who is representing Wells Fargo in the Holm v. Wells, I am all too familiar with and is part of my SEC Whistleblower claim. Plus if you read the re:Franklin bankruptcy case it involves a loan Washington Mutual (WaMu) purchase and MERS assigned this Title over to Wells Fargo in Jul 2010???? WaMu went out of business on Sept 25, 2008, and it is impossible for a dead man to assign anything when in fact your dead.

This show that these loan were handled out of the Milwaukee WI operation because they involve Wells Fargo and not JPMorgan! We getting to the end of this crap!